Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 Harris
County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2112570
consists of Justices Jamison, Busby, and Donovan.
Hill Jamison Justice
Lesley Esther Diamond was convicted of misdemeanor driving
while intoxicated. She filed an application for writ of
habeas corpus, in which she alleged that the State suppressed
favorable evidence in violation of her due process rights.
After a hearing, the habeas court denied the application. On
appeal, appellant contends in one issue that the habeas court
erred in concluding that the undisclosed evidence was not
favorable to the defense or material to the jury's guilty
verdict under Brady v. Maryland. Concluding that
the undisclosed evidence was not material to the jury's
verdict, we affirm.
did not appeal her conviction. But after appellant was
convicted, Andrea Gooden, an analyst from the Houston Police
Department crime lab who testified in appellant's trial,
self-reported that the crime lab had violated quality control
and documentation protocols. This report culminated in an
investigation and report by the Texas Forensic Science
Commission that was provided to appellant after her
Evidence Adduced at Trial
Bounds was conducting a traffic stop in Harris County, Texas,
when he observed appellant driving in excess of the speed
limit in the lane closest to Bounds's stopped patrol car
and the other stopped vehicle. Appellant made several unsafe
lane changes without signaling that caused other drivers to
brake suddenly. Bounds got into his vehicle and pursued
appellant until she stopped her vehicle.
conducting the stop, Bounds asked appellant to step out of
her vehicle. When she did so, she staggered. Appellant told
Bounds she was coming from a golf course at a country club
but did not know the name or location of the country club.
Appellant told Bounds she had consumed three beers that day.
She also had an empty can of beer and two cold, unopened cans
of beer in her car.
testified that appellant appeared intoxicated, smelled of
alcohol, had red, glassy eyes and incoherent, slurred speech,
and appeared confused. Appellant said she had taken
medication but was unable to tell Bounds what kind of
medication it was.
requested another deputy to assist him. Deputy Francis
arrived and administered field sobriety tests. Bounds
testified that he observed appellant exhibit five out of
eight clues of intoxication on the walk and turn test and
four out of four clues on the one leg stand
test. Bounds further testified that appellant
had poor balance and staggered during the walk and turn test
but conceded that Francis made some mistakes in administering
the field sobriety tests. Bounds opined that appellant was
testified that her analysis of appellant's blood sample
revealed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.193, which
is above the legal limit of 0.08.
prosecutor argued during closing argument that the blood
analysis was "really important" because 0.193 is
"multiple times" the legal limit and that
"[i]t is pretty much undisputed that Deputy Bounds is
not good at testifying. In fact, he's probably not a very
good officer" and "[e]ven someone as simple or
dumb, however you want to call it, as Deputy Bounds, it was
clear to him that she was intoxicated."
jury found that appellant's BAC was above 0.15.
Evidence Adduced at Habeas Hearing
had been removed from casework two weeks prior to trial
because of her involvement with an erroneous lab report in
another case. In that case, an officer had mislabeled vials
containing blood specimens with the wrong suspect's name.
Knowing about the error, Gooden analyzed the blood samples
but initially set them aside until the officer could correct
the mistake. Gooden also prepared a draft lab report and
certified that it was accurate. The report, still containing
the wrong suspect's name, erroneously was ...